SILVERIO FELICES v.

MAMERTO IRIOLA

G.R. No. L-11269. February 28, 1958.

FACTS:

Silverio Felices was the grantee of a homestead of over eight hectares located in
barrio Curry, Municipality of Pili, Province of Camarines Sur, under Homestead
Patent No. V-2117 dated January 26, 1949, and by virtue of which he was issued
Original Certicate of Title No. 104 over said property. On February 24, 1949, Felices
conveyed in conditional sale to Mamerto Iriola four hectares of the said land for
P1,700. Under the conditional sale, after the lapse of five years or as soon as may be
allowed vendor or his successors would execute in vendee's favor a deed of absolute
sale over the land in question.

On April 19, 1951, Felices tried to recover the land in question from Iriola, but the
latter refused to allow it unless he was paid the amount of P2,000 as the alleged value
of improvements he had introduced on the property. Upon Iriola’s refusal, Felices
deposited to the lower court the purchase price of P1,700 and filed an action to
recover the property.

The lower court held Iriola in bad faith since they found out that the improvements
were made either after Felices had informed him of his intention to recover the land,
after the complaint had beed filed or even after a commissioner had already been
appointed to appraise their value.

The sale in question was executed by the parties within the five-year prohibitive
period under section 118 of the Public Land Law, the same is absolutely null and void
and ineffective from its inception.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mamerto Iriola may recover or be reimbursed the value of his
improvements on the land in question, on the theory that as both he and appellee knew
that their sale was illegal and void, they were both in bad faith and consequently, Art.
453 of the Civil Code applies in that "the rights of one and the other shall be the same
as though both had acted in good faith”?

HELD: NO. Felices cannot be held in bad faith since the improvements in question
were made on the only after he had tried to recover the land from Iriolat, and even
during the pendency of the action in the lower court. Felices could no longer be
regarded as having impliedly assented or conformed to the improvements made by
Iriola on the property since he has already expressed his wish to recover the property
prior to the improvements.

Therefore it is Art 449 and not Art 453 that is applicable to this case; "He who builds,
plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted, or sown
without right to indemnity" Since Iriola acted in bad faith, he must forfeit his
improvements without any right to reimbursement.